Hello,
I have a contract on a home that specifies

"This contract is subject to a satisfactory home inspection performed
within 10 days of ratification of this contract..."

10 days have elapsed, and, although I have asked the buyer when the
inspection is to be done, it has not yet been done. Does this failure
to have the inspection done in the time specified remove the
contingency or void the contract?

Any clue?

In article .com,
wrote:

Hello,
I have a contract on a home that specifies

"This contract is subject to a satisfactory home inspection performed
within 10 days of ratification of this contract..."

10 days have elapsed, and, although I have asked the buyer when the
inspection is to be done, it has not yet been done. Does this failure
to have the inspection done in the time specified remove the
contingency or void the contract?

Sounds like the buyer has given up the chance to get a home
inspection AND have the results of the home inspection be the
basis to cancel the contract. From now on, if they ask for a
home inspection, let them know that the output will be
interesting, but not binding.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

I'd say if that's all the contract says, you have a very poorly written
contract. The contract should say that the buyer has the right to an
inspection, that it must be done withing a certain timeframe, that the
seller must be furnished a copy, what happens if defects are found,
etc. And it should also say that if the inspection is not done in
that time period, then the inspection contigency is waived and the sale
proceeds.

Did you have an attorney review this contract? I'd say if that's all
you have, then the issue is definitely arguable. Who drafted the
contract? Normally, a court would view ambiguities in favor of the
party that did not write it.

writes:

Hello,
I have a contract on a home that specifies

"This contract is subject to a satisfactory home inspection performed
within 10 days of ratification of this contract..."

10 days have elapsed, and, although I have asked the buyer when the
inspection is to be done, it has not yet been done. Does this failure
to have the inspection done in the time specified remove the
contingency or void the contract?

Any clue?

Depends on the rest of the contract of course. Read further.

First, these days are typically business days not including holidays
or weekends.

In the Northern Illinois contract, it says "If written notice is not
served within the time specified, this providion shall be deemed
waived by Parties and this Contract shall remain in full force and
effect." The written notice it mentions is the buyer telling you what
defects the inspection report uncovered that are not acceptable to
them. So, here, our contract defaults to "everything's peachy, time
marches on."

But don't let your guard down--you have good cause to worry. If
you've lost the interest/goodwill of the buyer, you may not have a
sale and your house isn't being shown to anyone either.

Contact your realtor, attorney, etc to find out whether your deal is
still alive. If you aspire to get your hands on the earnest money,
don't get your hopes up. It's very difficult, even if the buyer is in
default unless you can prove damages, and the home is not yet sold by
the time the complaint goes to civil trial.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Todd H. wrote:
writes:

Hello,
I have a contract on a home that specifies

"This contract is subject to a satisfactory home inspection performed
within 10 days of ratification of this contract..."

10 days have elapsed, and, although I have asked the buyer when the
inspection is to be done, it has not yet been done. Does this failure
to have the inspection done in the time specified remove the
contingency or void the contract?

Any clue?

Depends on the rest of the contract of course. Read further.

First, these days are typically business days not including holidays
or weekends.

In the Northern Illinois contract, it says "If written notice is not
served within the time specified, this providion shall be deemed
waived by Parties and this Contract shall remain in full force and
effect." The written notice it mentions is the buyer telling you what
defects the inspection report uncovered that are not acceptable to
them. So, here, our contract defaults to "everything's peachy, time
marches on."

But don't let your guard down--you have good cause to worry. If
you've lost the interest/goodwill of the buyer, you may not have a
sale and your house isn't being shown to anyone either.

Contact your realtor, attorney, etc to find out whether your deal is
still alive. If you aspire to get your hands on the earnest money,
don't get your hopes up. It's very difficult, even if the buyer is in
default unless you can prove damages, and the home is not yet sold by
the time the complaint goes to civil trial.

You have it backwards. The best way to prove damages is for the house
to have been sold after the buyer breached the contract. If it sold
for less, the difference, plus any carrying costs in the interim, are
the damages.





Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

On 9 Jun 2006 12:58:05 -0700, someone wrote:


Any clue?

What does your attorney say?

Oh wait, selling a house is so simple that there is no need to waste
money on an attorney. All you have to do is get free advice on
usenet. Yep, that'll cover it.

If you wait until there is already a problem, it is too late. The
time to get legal advice is BEFORE a contract is signed, not trying to
find out what it means AFTER you have signed it.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

When was attorney review? If you are concerned why not just contact
parties involved.
If buyers are not willing to proceed let it go. It really isnt worth
trying toforce someone to buy. They will come back with alist of
expensive things they want fixed. You will say no and they will walk.
Especially health /safety issues. Is there a spot of mold anywhere?
A complete inspection and remediation can be costly. They will claim
you denied accees etc. Better to find someone who actually wants the
house.


wrote:
Hello,
I have a contract on a home that specifies

"This contract is subject to a satisfactory home inspection performed
within 10 days of ratification of this contract..."

10 days have elapsed, and, although I have asked the buyer when the
inspection is to be done, it has not yet been done. Does this failure
to have the inspection done in the time specified remove the
contingency or void the contract?

Any clue?

On 11 Jun 2006 13:54:52 -0700, someone wrote:

A complete inspection and remediation can be costly. They will claim
you denied accees etc. Better to find someone who actually wants the
house.

Huh? You are even more panicky than OP. NOBODY except OP has
complained about not getting the inspection done. Buyer had 10 days
to do it, and didn't. OP is an idiot for jerking Buyer's chain and
raising the issue. It is for Buyer to do it if Buyer wants to. The
Inspection is for Buyer's protection not Seller's, and if Buyer
doesn't bother, why is the Seller griping?

So far there is NO indication Buyer doesn't want the house.

There are two typical scenarios why Buyer doesn't do the inspection.
One, he is confident in the condition of the house as he saw it. Two,
it is a fixer-upper and he is planning major tearouts and renovations
anyway, so doesn't care much about what's wrong now.

Not every Buyer is ignorant about the condition of houses. It is the
more knowledgeable buyers who often DON'T feel the need for an outside
inspector who may know even less than they do. Why a Seller would
push the inspection if Buyer aint bothering, I dunno.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

In some areas, the *seller*, not the buyer, is responsible for
getting the home inspection done. That seems to be the case
here.

In which case, the seller is in default. Oops. The buyer can
(a) demand refund of the earnest money and walk away, or (b)
negotiate a new contract with a new (lower) price, or (c) sue
(or merely threaten to sue) to force the sale per the current
contract.

Hope this helps,

Una

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 21:21:37 GMT, someone wrote:

... (c) sue
(or merely threaten to sue) to force the sale per the current
contract.

Hope this helps,

Una
Nope, DIDN'T help. From OP's post, it was Buyer's inspection. AND,
since Seller WANTS to sell per the contract, what kind of threat is it
for the Buyer to sue to "force" the sale per the current contract
which is what Seller wants anyway?????


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

v wrote:
From OP's post, it was Buyer's inspection.

That appears to be true. In which case the seller can try
to sue for specific performance.

Una

The OP has not posted backl. Sounds like deal is dead. Happens all the
time.

Una wrote:
v wrote:
From OP's post, it was Buyer's inspection.

That appears to be true. In which case the seller can try
to sue for specific performance.

Una